Climate Change

I think a better question might be, "is anybody NOT experiencing odd weather".

As to the cause, there's the rub.

I think that we can all agree that the earth, not Hong Kong, not LA, but the whole banana goes through warming and cooling cycles.

These will, of course, affect the weather.

NOAA: July 2012 was the Hottest Month on Record - weather.com

We've had our share of weather weirdness here in Arizona.

And this for #2 2012: Warmest Year on Record for U.S. - weather.com

I think for us here in the northern midwest, 2012 was the warmest year on record, period, not just July. I will check on that fact.

Since climate changes at intervals that go from hundreds of years to millions of years, a 55 year yardstick is pretty useless for predicting future climate trends.

Add to that, your location is just one in the world and you have not actually recorded any data - just recalled from memory.

This is why I think the original poster's question is not useful to answering the question of "what is going on" by simply sampling subjective data from people that have only been alive a wink of time.

Thank you...thank you very much...GA

But what I want to hear about is peoples different opinions, and stories about weather in their little parts of the world. Do they think it's because of climate change. I don't care about statistics, I can look up weather statistic's all by myself. I want to hear about your weather in your own micro climate, is it odd, or wild, do you think it's because of climate change.

May I suggest this site?

Otherwise--

Western Washington, January, 2013:

Overcast

--cloud cover decreased the sunshine

Wet when it rained

--puddles formed

--lakes got higher when it rained more

The tides came and went...roughly every 6 hours

The waves in Puget Sound were higher when the wind blew

--subsided when the winds decreased

You don't get it do you? I want to hear from actual people, I want to hear their opinions about the weather that is going on around them.

Okay.

Tuesday and wednesday night were around -18 to -22 F with wind chills down around -45 to -50 F and lower while I was working night shift.

Today is around +14 F right now with light winds. Feels darn right pleasant outside in comparison to the other nights too!

Seen worse and seen better in my life. Grandpa has stories of past weather events that go far beyond mine so there is nothing we are worried about climate change wise.

If anything we would love to see a good day to day 10+F gain year round! Or at least a 20+ F gain all winter!

(Time to go and toss another tire on the fire. Some theories say it might help but if not at least we are sure getting rid of a lot of old tires!)

Ok, that was the facts about your weather, is it odd or out of the norm in your opinion?

Makes me think MI weather is not so bad But I can't convince my wife of that.

See post 9 for what we North Dakotans need to see to consider the weather out of the ordinary.

Send your wife here to live from mid December to mid March. I promise it will shut her right up about living conditions anywhere else civilized.

BTW my wife is from Turkey so you can only imagine what daily complaints I get to endure about the weather.

Why is it so cold?

Why is it so windy?

Why is it snowing?

Why is it so cold and windy and snowing?

Why was it 40+ F this afternoon and now its -10 F 12 hours later?

Because it can!

I made her read your post, didn't help my cause. I want to take the family to the west side of the state, off Lake Michigan, to see real snow (they have been getting 12+" a day when lake effect is going) Don't think that's going to happen, either is my dream to go to Alaska in the winter..... Oh well.

She also thinks I am retarded for spending an entire day 7 miles out on Saginaw Bay ice fishing for walleye when it's 10 F and 40mph winds, to me that's fun..

Dear Mr.tomtech,

I am of the view, that the CIRCULATION or MOVEMENT of AIR - such as STILL or FAST CIRCULATION. in the particular Zone, is the Root Cause for this extreme or Violent Variations of the Temperature. Then we have to understand WHAT CAUSES for such poor air circulation and its impact.

I am of the view that,it appears - this topic CLIMATE CHANGE is becoming a bit difficult to understand. Very recently I have read an article that, the ever increasing emission of CARBON-DI-OXIDE to atmosphere, which traps the HEAT is not contributing much to the GLOBAL WARMING, but it is the MOISTURE IN THE AIR is causing the GLOBAL WARMING.

Thanks,

DHAYANANDHAN.S

The valley girls are going to have to stop taking so many showers.

I am an actual person...that was the weather that was going on around me...

Sheesh, what do you want? You want it all handed to you on a silver platter? If you want the data collected by real people then go to work for NOAA and be a real scientist.

I gave a good link to COCORAHS which measures rainfall. That's a huge chunk for free. If you want more/varied free data I suggest setting up your own worldwide network of data collecting junkies like they did.

Don't forget...the world is a big place...you have a lot of begging to do (in thousands of languages) for free data.

Is that your map of the world?

Well, stories are fun, but they hold little statistical value due to their highly subjective nature.

In the end, my answer is it may be or it may not be.

It is like watching gas prices over the course of 5 days. Does that indicate a longer term trend? What can you predict with 5 days of data for the next 10 years?

That example assumes you are actually recording data, too. The idea of relying on very subjective memories for comparisons of winters or summers, rather than actually compiling data on a daily basis, is much too flawed to draw a conclusion - unless you are studying the subjective nature of the mind.

I am not recording data, this thread is about my curiosity. I made an observation about the weather in my little part of the world, my opinion about it. I want to hear about other peoples opinions about weather in their part of the world, their stories so to speak. I don't need validation about my beliefs on climate change being real or not or it's causes, nor do I care about yours or anybody else's beliefs on the same.

Either you think you are having odd weather or you don't, if you do think you are, then you think it's because of climate change or it isn't. There is no right or wrong answer here if you answer my post in the spirit I asked it. I really don't care about historical data, I am asking about opinions on what's going on in the here and now.

My post is for fun, for curiosity. I'm sure I'm not the only one that likes to hear what's going on in other parts of the world and what people think if even only on a small scale. I only wanted opinions on your weather, not statistics of global weather or your opinion on why I asked this.

Read Solar Eagles Post, opposite of my opinion but answered in the spirit of my OP (other than the jihad part, but that was funny), a GA from me.

So please, if you or anybody else can't answer with an observation about your weather or an opinion on why it is or isn't happening, or if my OP irritates you, step off. This is meant for fun.

Well, it's Florida weather here. Every day is about the same; sunny, breezy, and warm.

The only real season we have hear is snowbird season. Either it's in season or out. :)

I kind of think of it as setting up a microscope on a gravel road and guessing from the view through the microscope whether the road is going uphill or downhill.

Exactly. Well put.

GA.

No sh!t...

I regard the OP's idea of just for "fun" as counter-intuitive and producing negative feedback for real information.

Just because the donkey's tail is wet and moving doesn't mean the "climate" is changing.

His time would have been better spent watching the weather from various TV stations around the world...

...but that would have been actually lifting the spoon to his mouth.

GA Snewkirk

As AH correctly pointed out, using our senses is not a good way to compare weather.

I find that the present cold front is always worst than the last one even if the thermometer states the opposite...

Our memory is not objective and we always find the present pain worst that the past one.

Anyway, we cannot do much about it. Enjoy the weather for what it is and stop worrying about it.

You already did check that fact, thanks

Here's a rub: we hardly had any sun at all in July, 2012 in Western Washington. "Normally" it's quite sunny, especially in the southern peninsula and in the rain shadow.

What some see as weird weather is just the weather.

Heat is energy. There is more energy in the atmosphere, hence the winds get stronger. Just keep an eye out for my ex wife on that bicycle with the dog in the basket on the handlebars.

Well all fine here, but when I read the newspaper its always the hottest year within 4 years and the wettest since 2007 and the most storms since yesterday.

Honestly I think in my age I went through all the cicles already that are announced in the paper and its all coming back again. Would you think I have seen snow for a couple of winters and yet there it was again.

Is this climate or wheather. I am pretty sure it was there before so it must be weather!

Let me see, I'll go backwards in time. Today's high is anticipated to be 32°F. Yesterday, the temperature high was 62°F at 2:00 AM EST. You may have heard that we had a little storm last October, 2012. Last winter (2011-2012) was the second warmest winter on record. Then there was the Nor'easter just prior to Halloween 2011. Before that Hurricane Irene visited us in 2011. I won't forget that in July 2011 the highest temperature ever recorded in NY happened.

Now can this series of events be proven beyond a shadow of doubt to be from climate change... no. Did the global warming "alarmists" predict these types of events will be more likely to happen due to global warming... who's to judge that?

Does not usually get that cold here maybe 10° F is about the coldest. But the changes in the weather you state are pretty much the norm.

It's rare that it gets cold and stays cold for any length of time. Last time 2009-2010 stayed about 30º F most the winter which gave us some nice snows.

Unless its under -50 F without the windchill or over 125 F in the shade or the temp has changed +- 80 F in 24 hours and the wind is not blowing over 100 MPH without being in a tornado we consider it all normal North Dakota weather here.

So quit complaining.

You have the very essence of the difficulty in the global warming debate in your reply. The time span of the predicted global warming effect is longer than a human lifespan. The annual deviations in weather observed by an individual are greater than the trend predicted by global warming. So clearly the only way to objectively examine this effect is the much maligned and often fraudulently manipulated mathematics of statistics. Remember, statistics cannot prove anything. Statistics can only measure the likelihood of correlation.

What about the rest of the world? Europe?, Asia?, Australia?

75 and sunny there in Florida?

Currently 57° F and sunny....

Close enough.....

Climate change is real, I just don't to debate the alleged causes of it. Nobody will convince me it is not a naturally occurring phenomenon.

It is a completely natural rhythmic cycle that the earth has gone through for millions if not billions of years. You don't go from tropical conditions covering most of the earth, to ice ages, to the temperate conditions now with out climate change. Thats a fact.

I also get sick of hearing people using climate change for their own political agenda, BS!

I just want to know if anybody is have weather that they think can be attributed to climate change (in their own opinion).

• I just want to know if anybody is have weather that they think can be attributed to climate change (in their own opinion).

I see.
No, there has not been any weather here or in any of the places I've traveled that can be attributed to climate change. I've experienced some reasonably extreme weather.

Just out of curiosity...your lake property in VA wouldn't happen to be used as a water supply in any way shape or form, would it?

Does it respond to tidal effects? Brackish? How large is the lake?

Funny thing is that several lakes in Washington state also dropped to records lows and some lakes disappeared after 70 years of maintaining a static state.

Oh, btw, they removed three dams there last year..._{^{did I fail to mention that?}}

Does that count at my place too?

For the last 12 years my house was over 250 feet away and 40 above our local water channel.

This year now its about 30 feet away and 8 feet above our local water channel.

If calculated at this rate for change I should be underwater by April!

(Sounds like some pretty serious climate and environmental changes happened this year unless I mention the part where I moved the old house down lower in the yard.)

Once again your post is one of the few talking any sense.

The oceans rise equally all over the world, on average, over a few days. So It is possible to tell if more ice melt is occurring over the decades, even for a layman. This can be done using historical photographs and other records. That is the most reliable indicator for the average global warming skeptic like me.

Would you please give me a reference to the most profound data that indicates that mankind plays a significant role in global warming versus nature all by itself? My thought is that our behavior has very little to do with it. Even if it did, I don't think that our behavior will change much if it involves paying high prices for energy. Air pollution from coal burning is a much easier sell, and replacing coal burning with natural gas plus wind, solar etc. will be possible. Natural gas contributes half the CO2 of coal use.

We have surpassed Europe in reducing CO2 emissions, by burning less coal and more natural gas. That is even though they have surpassed us in solar and wind use. Because of their slow movement toward fracking, they will continue to import coal from us.

I know that deniers will still claim they never saw this but I'll bring this up again.

A valid method to identify what is not the dominant cause of any effect is through statistical measurement. You measure the effect while you also measure all of the plausible causes. The causes that do not correlate well are not the dominant causes. If one or a combination of a very few measured causes correlate to the effect it does imply that these are likely the cause but it cannot prove this.

This is precisely what the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) analysis has done by collecting an enormous amount of historical global surface temperature measurement data over the past 200+ years and compared this data with all of the proposed historical measured and recorded causes. The factor that correlates well is CO2 levels. Sun spot activity, planetary orbit cycles, planet tilt, volcanic activity and many more plausible causes are considered in this enormous effort and do not correlate with the measured warming over the measured time period.

I doubt your "climate" changed. More like you had different weather from day to day.

yikes...

This is interesting:

http://www.stopgreensuicide.com/

If there was life on Mars,our earth too one day become dry,but due to what reason?. Is it natural death or man made as well as is climate change is natural or man made?. If you look back in history you will find climate changes/extinctions,sea level rising and falling, intercontinental drift etc have occurred before man evolved.

I've lived in southeastern Massachusetts for my entire life. The last couple of years we've had tornadoes. I never saw a tornado (in this area) before three or four years ago. Now, no one is surprised when we hear a tornado warning.

Odd weather? Yeah! very odd weather. Now I realize that 64 years isn't a long time in the overall scheme of things, but I would have bet money against a tornado coming across Narragansett Bay in my lifetime. As far as wide temperature changes, that's a way of life around here.

Worcester tornado, 1953? Hurricane of 1936? Hurricane Carol 1957? What is new?

The central and western part of Massachusetts do get tornadoes on occasion. Some of them are severe, but in the Narragansett Bay area they were unheard of until a couple of years ago. As far as hurricanes, they follow the golf stream, they're a common experience here. But they don't start here. The tornadoes are forming over the bay. That is what's new.

I have lived my entire life in New England, and we have had some wild, crazy and odd weather here, but that is normal for New England. Every year that I can remember the seasonal temperature, rain fall, and snow accumulation has been either above or below "average". According to the TV weather reporter, on any given day some weather record is "broken"

However, this winter (so far) and the last have been unusually mild, with almost no snow accumulation. Is this a result of global climate change? No, these unusual winters are due solely to the fact that two years ago my step-son (who did the snow shoveling) moved out of our house, and I was finally forced to go out and buy a snow blower.

Global warming? I will believe it when sea level has risen 120 feet and palm trees are growing on my beach front yard ( elev. 135 ft.) here in Haverhill. Then I can sell my house for big $$ and move to my wife's house in Coyoacan, Mexico (elev 7500 ft.) where there is nothing to worry about except an occasional volcanic eruption.

Mining,nuclear tests,fracking etc can create tremors or quakes.

They very well might, but volcanic eruptions and earth quakes have been happening in Mexico long before the first humans arrived there, and will be happening on a regular basis long after we have gone.

Are you watering the Aspens, Whitebarks, or Ponderosas?

If you aren't worried about the natural weather affecting the native trees which are a direct descendant of the climate then it isn't really that odd.

Imagine this on a larger scale, like a golf course owner in Palm Springs worried about a drought...kind of goes against reasoning.

I am not trying to be an ass here, like the OP implies, but the blaming the "climate" for the things which man has put into place being affected "negatively" by the weather...that just goes against the earth's natural system.

Speaking of weather and climate, I just want to wish all of our members, around the world a happy Ground Hog Day

So what about those of us who have studied up on all the theories and projections and feel that we have much to gain fit in?

The point is not everywhere and everything gets worse with warming many places stand to gain substantially from it as well!

I for one say bring the heat and I openly admit to doing everything I can within my convenience level to push my CO2 emissions up not down even though I have doubts that our collective human influences are anywhere near enough to matter in the long run being too many of our activities when weighed in against the shear volumes and numbers that nature tosses around in masses and energy levels leave what use puny humans do floating around in the smaller end of the +- aggregate of the natural levels and values.

You seem to have indiscriminately conflated science and politics.

You are welcome, of course, to hold whatever political views you want, but CR4 is not the place for political discussions.

The science you mention has little to do with "climate change" as the term is used in the news and scientific literature. The global warming that scientists speak of is a far longer process than the 11 year sunspot cycles. The contribution of that cycle would suggest that 2020 should be cooler than now... but that is not what scientists are worried about. They are concerned about long term effects.

Without an atmosphere, the earth's average temperature would be about 18 degrees below 0 C. That atmosphere and its greenhouse effect plays a major role in the earth's retention of heat from the sun. Insolation levels alone do not predict the sort of long term global warming we have been experiencing and are concerned about. The earth's temperature cannot be explained without taking into account the greenhouse effect and greenhouse gases such as CO2.

The greenhouse effect is very old, very well-proven science.

The OP has asked that this not be a debate about the causes of global warming, so I am posting this as off-topic.

Until such time as it is a proven fact (and it is not) that carbon dioxide build up is the primary cause of warming, then what you have is emotion, and not science.

The basic premise of science is too seek the truth, without any contravening politics. Re: Galileo's telescopic discoveries represent science, whilst his writings where he portayed the church as a simpleton represent emotion (politics). It was the writings that (while they were based on fact, i.e. Copernicanism) the emotional dynamite results in Galileo standing before the Inquisition.

Now we seem to be on the verge of a time where if one purports truth, he best be careful not to face the Inquisition (made up of the religion of greenhouse effect).

Can you indeed literally prove (or even support) anything about global warming without resorting to cookbooked data, pencil titrations, or other contrivances of falsification? If so, then let's see the data.

One would never be able to prove that Carbon Dioxide has the effects that one side of the fence wants to see unless one could completely remove CO from the equation and check the effects.

What we can do is model the earth's environment based on certain assumptions and work forward by looking at similar systems and evaluating the outcome based on the original assumptions and facts gathered. For example...why does it sometimes reach into the 60's (F) on Mars when it is so much further from the sun? CO levels are the most likely culprit since it appears to be such a huge greenhouse gas here on earth as well, and the Martian atmosphere is made up of 95% CO, determined by direct sampling.

What makes earth so warm? That's a great question which we have great answers for and requires no politics whatsoever.

There seems to be another factor here aside from scientists and politicians: those who question the obvious without fact or intelligent thought, making pure rhetoric and confusing the masses.

Until such time as it is a proven fact (and it is not) that carbon dioxide build up is the primary cause of warming, then what you have is emotion, and not science.

You are not using the word "science" as scientists use it. Very little of science has to do with facts. Although Newton's law of gravity works well for approximations, it says nothing about how gravity works. (The theory of general relativity provides some insights re space time curvature, but no theory of gravitation reconciles with the Standard Model.) Although we do not know the mechanism responsible for gravity, we can treat Newton's Law as "good enough" for most purposes: we act like it is a "fact".

The effects of CO2 as a greenhouse gas have been observed for more than 100 years, and Arhenius was essentially correct in his understanding -- there have been many replications, demonstrations of of the principals, and measurements taken from satellites to prove that he was correct. When I was taught about the greenhouse effect in the 1950's, the number of studies even back then was large enough that the greenhouse effect was taken as "fact" (as you seem to be using the term). In other words, just as an apple falls from a tree when its stem yields (a fact), so too greenhouse effect increases with increasing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere (a fact). (Obviously we are assuming that other gasses and particulates are held constant).

Arnhenius was the father of physical chemistry and his ideas about greenhouse gases are just as valid and fundamental to scientific understanding as his ideas about acids and bases.

Can you indeed literally prove (or even support) anything about global warming without resorting to cookbooked data, pencil titrations, or other contrivances of falsification? If so, then let's see the data.

Start here with the Wikipedia article, which seems to be in agreement with most of the science on the subject. If you have studies that show that key aspects of the Wikipedia article are incorrect, or if you have a study that shows that Arnhenius was wrong, then feel free to present them.

Next read about the feedback loops that come into play. If you hope to find some simplistic "It's the sunspots cycle!" or "It's the earth's distance from the sun!" or any of the other gross oversimplifications that the anti-science folks come up with, this article may be disappointing. Faux News is a great source for that drivel, however.

Now we seem to be on the verge of a time where if one purports truth, he best be careful not to face the Inquisition (made up of the religion of greenhouse effect).

Do you have evidence of this Inquisition? I cannot find any evidence that oil company CEOs are receiving death threats because of their views on climate change, but it is easy to find evidence that climatologists are.

Thanks for your contribution. I totally agree that generalized pollution is much more important than CO2 levels. There is no comparison. People complain about fracking even though there are many greater concerns that go by without much thought: pesticides, coal pollution with particulates, ash, mercury, siltation and nitrogen from farming, untreated sewage, pharmaceuticals etc.

I totally agree that generalized pollution is much more important than CO2 levels. There is no comparison. People complain about fracking even though there are many greater concerns...

The issue with fracking is not CO2 -- in fact, power generation using natural gas causes about half the CO2 emissions per kWh as caused by using coal. The issue with fracking is closer to the "greater concerns" you mention, such as pollution of local drinking water supplies.

... that go by without much thought: pesticides, coal pollution with particulates, ash, mercury, siltation and nitrogen from farming, untreated sewage, pharmaceuticals etc.

There is not one issue in the list that is news to anyone vaguely aware of environmental issues. Local environmental groups have railed against all these and many more for decades. The fundamental difference with CO2 is that (for example) China's CO2 emissions affect everyone in the world: the effect is global rather than local.

So we agree that displacing coal use with natural gas is a good thing, though not as disirable with a perfectly green solution? I support best practices in fracking, but it is what is making replacing coal possible, for now. Wind and solar etc. cannot do it alone.

I agree entirely.

2000 was the wettest year on record in England, with 2012 second-wettest (6.6mm short of the 2000 figure).

2006 was the warmest year on record, with 2011 the runner-up.

I think the climatologists do more than look at the last 100 years to determine the climate is changing. I believe they drill core samples in ice and study other things to look at the climate over tens of thousands of years, if not more. They understand the natural cycles, and they know when the Earth is not following a natural cycle. I'll put my money with them.

Would that be the same climatologists that now want the mid evil warming period and the little ice age reclassified as long term weather anomalies opposed to natural climatic variations even though they encompassed 300 - 400 years each from the points where they went above or below the statistical average mean temps yet want the lat 40 - 50 years or so of variances to be labeled climatic change?

Just asking?

"Mid evil"...

Your Freudian slip is showing.

Nah. The spell check here insisted and I was too lazy and didn't double check it in proper reading context.

We have dust, CO₂, and temperature data from Vostock for the last 400,000 years, indicating global warming precedes higher CO₂ levels.

We have additional ice core data from Concordia station, and Kohnen station. This is where they keep all the data from those ice cores. Yes, I know. 404 not found. Anyone know where to find the data on Concordia and Kohnen ice cores?

We have sediment records showing the fluctuating sequences of glacials and interglacials during the last five million years. The fluctuations have been of an increasingly greater amplitude for the last few million years.

And we have "climatologist" models.

Where did you get the figure of 0.01 deg warming? The news media here reported that it increased nearly 1 deg in 2012. Can you refute that with a non biased site?

Which news media? I don't trust anyone, especially if their mouth is moving...

I was wrong. The figure, properly rounded should have been 0.02 degrees C. The news media cherry picks their data to suit their agendas. In Colorado, the bias from the media will be particularly acute. Would you consider NOAA to be an unbiased site??

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2012/6

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cmb-faq/temperature-monitoring.html

Since 1880 the average temperature has risen at different rates, but the worst-case slope is about 1.6 degrees C per CENTURY.

The information is out there. It takes all of 15 minutes to find it. (Or less if you're really good.) I've often wondered how long it will take the general public (if ever) to get really angry at the intelligentsia who have been selectively reporting data on the whole climate change business.

Those who dare to challenge the party line are summarily shouted down and called all manner of names. Again, I will point out that the earth has been warming. To what extent is actually caused by man is of course subject to much debate.

It is with great hubris that people believe they understand unequivocally a massively large system with many thousands of degrees of freedom. As engineers, we have trouble with system analysis with four or five degrees of freedom.

I am no way disparaging the research by many hundreds or thousands of scientists, as they have been working very hard to understand this beast we call our Earth, but it is at best an estimate based upon a necessarily truncated model.

My concern is that many wish to run head-long into rather draconian measures to 'fix' our climate. We are not on a precipice, ready to go off the edge. We have time, time to continue to study, time to make incremental changes, time to adjust to our world as it changes, as it has been changing for all known time.

Cheers !

Thanks for the links. I wasn't criticising your data. From the first link:

• The average combined global land and ocean surface temperature for June 2012 was 0.63°C (1.13°F) above the 20^th century average of 15.5°C (59.9°F). This is the fourth warmest June since records began in 1880.
  
• The Northern Hemisphere land surface temperature for June 2012 was the all-time warmest June on record, at 1.30°C (2.34°F) above average.
  
• The globally-averaged land surface temperature for June 2012 was also the all-time warmest June on record, at 1.07°C (1.93°F) above average.
  
• ENSO-neutral conditions continued in the eastern equatorial Pacific Ocean during June 2012 as sea surface temperature anomalies continued to rise. The June worldwide ocean surface temperatures ranked as the 10^thwarmest June on record.
  
• The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for January-June 2012 was the 11^th warmest on record, at 0.52°C (0.94°F) above the 20^th century average.

It seems that the news media took the June data and applied it to the entire year. One has to wonder who paid them to do that. The data shows how different it can be (normally) from one year to another.

One has to wonder who paid them to do that.

Let me think. Exxon is one of several very large energy companies which benefit dramatically from increasing the use of fuels that accelerate global warming. They take in as much revenue in 24 minutes as The Union of Concerned Scientists does in a year. (In a year, Exxon Mobil takes in about 22,000 times as much money as the Union of Concerned scientists.)

Looked at in another way, Exxon Mobil had $486.4 billion in revenue in 2011. Had they completely funded The Union of Concerned Scientists from that revenue, their remaining revenue would have been $486.4 billion... no visible change. To them, the Union's budget is a rounding error. (If only this were an exaggeration... but it is not.)

The loudest mouthpiece for the oil industry interests is Fox news. Several studies have shown that prolonged viewing of Fox news actually makes people dumber (less able to answer simple questions about current events and science). Small wonder that misinformation is so broadly and easily spread.

"Several studies have shown that prolonged viewing of Fox news actually makes people dumber"

What studies?

Not that I am a Fox fan or even watch or visit their web sites, that kind of rhetoric smacks of junk science.

However, if you want a real challenge, find a news organization that does not have their own agenda (left, right, up, or down) and bias their broadcasts to support it.

Let me know when you find one.

Do you think that the heat island effect of cities where temps are taken could throw off these figures, or is that carefully controlled for? I have seen gauges on rooftops of large buildings, and next to asphalt roads. Didn't have so many of those in 1880. I trust sea level changes much more.

So does anyone want to discus how water vapor influences the greenhouse effects or how long term solar high and low cycles beyond the 11 year and 22 years cycles play in with all of this?

Long term solar cycle theories suggest ~200, ~500, ~2300 - 2500, 6000 year long term cycles as well.

--------------------

"Hypothesized cycles

Periodicity of solar activity with periods longer than the sunspot cycle has been proposed. Some of these proposed longer cycles include:

• 87 years (70-100 years): Gleissberg cycle, named after Wolfgang Gleißberg, is thought to be an amplitude modulation of the 11-year Schwabe Cycle (Sonnett and Finney, 1990),^[31] Braun, et al., (2005).^[32]
• 210 years: Suess cycle (a.k.a. "de Vries cycle"). Braun, et al., (2005).^[32]
• 2,300 years: Hallstatt cycle^[33][34]
• 6000 years (Xapsos and Burke, 2009).^[35]

Other patterns have been detected:

• In carbon-14: 105, 131, 232, 385, 504, 805, 2,241 years (Damon and Sonnett, 1991).
• During the Upper Permian 240 million years ago, mineral layers created in the Castile Formation show cycles of 2,500 years.

The sensitivity of climate to cyclical variations in solar forcing will be higher for longer cycles due to the thermal inertia of the oceans, which acts to damp high frequencies. Using a phenomenological approach, Scafetta and West (2005) found that the climate is 1.5 times as sensitive to 22-year cyclical forcing relative to 11-year cyclical forcing, and that the thermal inertia of the oceans induces a lag of approximately 2.2 (± 2) years in cyclic climate response in the temperature data.^{[36] "}

^{-----------------------}

^From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation

The point is our sun is nowhere near perfectly stable and unchanging nor has it been or eve will be. If anything we should be thankful it is as stable as it is and has been for as long as it has and to think that it plus water vapor have no effect or far less influence than man made CO2.... Well whatever. .

I'll discuss water vapor, if you will just let me tell you about my idea for the "Methane Initiative".

I propose a systematic reduction in the amount of refried beans on burritos, and a tax on broccoli kinda like they have on gasoline now.

By the way, what's up with you guys up there not sharing? According to the wikipedia page on global warming, you guys are gonna have these bountiful harvest, while the lower latitudes will be malnourished.

Tell me it's not true! Hopefully, this is just more disinformation. Or possibly their climate models don't have little trucks that move things from one place to another. No, that can't be it. What kind of climate model wouldn't have little virtual trucks driving around spewing out diesel fumes?

Our plans are to keep the bountiful harvests to ourselves being that even with a 10 C gain year round we would still have 6 months out of the year thats frigging cold here and we need the extra food to keep our energy levels up while we collect all the frozen malnourished southerners that wander up here to burn for firewood.

Just remember that when all this climate change gobbledy gook hits the fan us mid westerners will still be calling it typical weather by our standards. -50 F to 125 F every year and winds under 100 MPH is still what we call day to day normal weather here!

For that matter, the earth's spin axis precesses at a slow rate, isn't that about 20K years?

JPool, did you really think you could bring this up again without causing a debate?

"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." - Albert Einstein

Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/a/alberteins133991.html#ctm4iDrIf3WakQ5J.99

I knew it was going to go there, I have not brought it up before but maybe I am insane, because it was fun to watch.